incorporate our decision made in related Appeal No. 2002-0173 in
a more concise manner, as made evident below.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm-in-part the
rejection of claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. ~ 103 as being
unpatentable over Bivens in view of Talbot, and further in view
Gebauer or Yamamoto, and further in view of Ceska.
I. The rejection involving Claims 1 and 18
Claims 1 and 18 are set forth below:
1. A grouting composition comprising a first component, a
second component, and a compressible substance wherein said
first component comprises a peroxide, a liquid which comprises
water, and a solid particulate; and said second component
comprises a polymer, a crosslinking agent, and a solid
particulate and said liquid is present in said first component
in the range of from about 5 to about 35 weight % of said
polymer.
18. A process comprising combining a grouting composition with
a compressible substance wherein said composition comprises a
first component and a second component; said first component
comprises a peroxide, a liquid which comprises water, and a
solid particulate; and said second component comprises a polymer
and a crosslinking agent.
Claims 1 and 18 do not require a sugar component (whereas
claim 6 does require a sugar component, discussed, infra).
Turning now to the prior art rejection, the examiner's
position is that Bivens teaches appellants' system without a
compressible substance and without sugar. (answer, page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007